accident has taken place, where people are dying. A man imperils his safety and tries to rescue a woman. However, based on part of a video clip, he is labeled a molester rather than an exemplary citizen. The mistake is established as a longer video is found. So the media-person who labeled this rescuer a molester should say sorry to the individual, right?

Wrong. Indian media ethics – what little remains in the profession – is not just wafer thin; it is also devoid of commonly accepted societal norms of logic and decency. The accuser issued a general regret – “I erred, won’t happen again”. There was no compensation, not even a word, for the model citizen turned global poster boy of Indian male sexual deviancy.

A debate rages on Twitter every day, how abusive RW (short for right wing, dog whistle for Modi supporting Hindus) are towards media. There is no doubt that media-persons face a barrage of strong language and counters every day on Twitter. But why is that? There are five key reasons.

Showing mirror to power

Media-persons often like to standby their favourite dictum – comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable, attributed to American humourist Finley Peter Dunne. They also want to show mirror to the power of the day. In a two-tier system, when politicians represented power, and media represented the conscience keepers, this dictum worked smoothly. With the advent of social media however, we now have a three tier opinion making system.

Media loves to believe it has all the rights to question the politicians – the unsaid part being especially the ones who they don’t like – but gets agitated when the same yardstick is applied to them. Twitter user and editor of OpIndia Rahul Roushan says – Establishment is the bunch that systematically controls your thoughts through media and academics, not the government that’s there for 5 years. Media however doesn’t like accountability, but demands sweeping, discretionary powers.

While media has direct access to their bête noire political class, social media users can only exercise their right of questioning on Twitter. When they are denied access and answers, they write strong words.

Collective mediocrity trumps individual brilliance

Let’s say a Twitter user says “all doctors are thieves”. What is the likely reaction to this statement? Some people may agree with the sweeping generalization, most won’t. Some doctors may actually reason saying “not everyone is a thief – look at me”. Some doctors may even agree that due to crass commercial tendencies of a few individuals, the entire profession is getting a bad name. But what’s the probability of the best doctor on Twitter shooting an angry tweet-storm tagged to this user’s employer and saying “where do these abusive people come from?” Zero – this will never happen for doctors. Or engineers, CAs, or lawyers. In fact this won’t even happen for politicians!

This however happens every single time for media-persons. Make a statement like “media is wrong” and quite likely the best in the business will send you a direct message in passive aggressive tone saying “you bhakts will just not get it”. Don’t believe it? Well, I would love to add screenshots of DMs from a national business editor – an absolutely rocking, delightful, and knowledgeable individual – but let’s not get there.

Media is the only profession where individual brilliance comes to the rescue of collective mediocrity. This is the only profession where the best in the business defend the worst in the name of professional solidarity. And this is the only business where participants believe that they are all above average when it comes to professional morality – laws of central tendency be damned.

Consumer is the king – or not

Every neighbourhood kirana shop in Hindi belt will likely have a sticker – “grahak bhagwan ka roop hota hai.” The consumer is king, but not in Indian media business. This is the only industry in India, which has no responsibility for the consumer – the lay reader. Of course, the reasons are structural.

While most people believe Indian media is in the business of taking news to the readers, in reality this business is about taking influence, or rather the threat of it, to the powers that be. Long before Google create a product out of the user, Indian media had perfected the model. Our media aggregates readers and sells their collective influence in form of threats – what if! – to politicians to influence decisions or industry to get advertisements.

Their consumers are advertisers and people in important positions, but not the readers.

Residual competence

Look at any professional career in India – there are entrance tests to qualify before one is accepted in a good quality educational institute and there are exams to clear before one gets out of these institutes and starts practicing the said profession. Engineering? Check. Medicine? Check. Accountancy? Check. Law? Check. Design? Check. Management? Check.

Media? Uncheck.

One can get an admission to most media schools without any real entrance competition. There is no tollgate on who makes it. So who really makes it? Well, anyone who could not make it anywhere else will be a significant part of the population studying journalism. What does that say about the competence in the system? Not a lot, theoretically.

Over time, this available incompetence meets irresistible access – access to the power. And it assumes that the gatekeeper is the owner of the mansion. For the qualifications and skills of a gatekeeper, the media-persons start owning mansions in the posh Jor Bagh. Sometimes literally.

Consequences are inconsequential

What happens when you or I do a terrible job at work? When we lose a deal? When we don’t deliver a project? When we make a mistake? You or I get fired. Or least take a bonus cut. Or at the minimum, we get no wage hike as a consequence.

What happens when a media-person wrongly and incompetently accuses a person of being a molester? She is praised by her fellow professionals for expressing regret. Don’t believe it? Check the Twitter timelines of any Indian media employee from October 4th 2017. Even the sane one – and there are many in the profession despite the general mediocrity – heaped praises on the concerned newspaper, its editor and the reporter for expressing regret. Guess we are lucky no one demanded a Bharat Ratna for the said reporter for being regretful.

Media-persons face little or no consequences for acting in the disinterest of the readers. Yes, they may face consequences of their real consumers’ ire – a politician or an industrialist may well get someone fired. But it would not be for the lack of job skills.

So here we are – say something strong to someone incompetent, shaping a public discourse, potentially incorrectly, and who is not likely to face any consequence of this action – and you will be labeled abusive. The little power of narrative disintermediation which social media has bestowed upon you is abusive to the media-persons – it has taken away their carte blanche.

When you can neither peek in the mirror nor break it, it is best to call the ones holding the mirror abusive. For it is not your words they are labeling – it’s your intent. Something’s got to give, to quote Ravi Shastri – we just don’t know when.

Earlier this week, when Yogi Adityanath threw stats about Kerala’s health situation in the face of the CPI(M), the secular brigade exploded in anger. First the BJP makes the Communist policy of mass murder in Kerala a national issue and now it is trying to rip apart the carefully constructed web of lies around Kerala’s “prosperity” by sympathetic media over the years.

In extreme panic, Scroll published right away this booming headline…

With a headline like this, Scroll must have big stats to back their words up. The left was getting ready to debunk Yogi Adityanath all over the place, with Catch, Wire, Newslaundry and Altnews joining the party.

But you know things aren’t going well when Scroll has to admit this in the article:

This sad admission is hilarious for several reasons. So the way that Scroll is trying to save the CPI(M) government from the BJP’s onslaught is by saying two things:

(1) UP may be doing better this year after BJP coming to power, but things used to be much worse in UP last year under the secular government of Akhilesh Yadav!

(2) Kerala may be doing badly this year under CPI(M), but it did better last year when CPI(M) came to power only in the late summer!

Is Scroll trying to debunk the BJP or its own secular liberal friends?

I’m not kidding. This is still from the Scroll article “debunking” Yogi Adityanath. Is Scroll debunking him or debunking itself? LOL

And watch this :

Would you believe I am still quoting the leftist propaganda blog Scroll?

So, will Scroll graciously admit defeat and congratulate Yogi Adityanath for his stellar performance? You’ll never guess what Scroll does next:

Whoa! What a thing to say!

Who is in charge of public sanitation and control of mosquitoes in Uttar Pradesh? Rahul Gandhi?

So, they discover that Yogi Adityanath lied when he claimed he made the hospitals in Uttar Pradesh better. When in fact Yogi Adityanath only made sure that people didn’t fall sick and have to go to hospital in the first place!

Yeah some lie they have caught!

So, I decided to go to the website of the National Vector Borne Disease Control Program and take a look at the stats for myself.

And finally, here are the numbers for Chikungunya (till Aug 20, 2017):

If you are an actor or artist who plans to return an award to protest against the “intolerance” of Yogi Adityanath, this would be a good time, now that he seems to be carrying out a genocide in UP … of mosquitoes.

And if you are a journalist, just reject all the data above, and say that it’s the “maahaul” that matters, not data.

When CM Yogi Adityanath said that Taj Mahal has no connection with India’s culture or heritage, it had worried a bunch of people who were attached to Mughal’s monuments of so called love.

Now, CM Yogi moved a step forward as he removed Taj Mahal from Uttar Pradesh tourism booklet. Looking at this decision, the Mughal fans have gone crazy. They are trying to convince the government that India’s history is rich due to the innumerable contributions of the Mughals.

Let me give you a tip of an ice berg on how these Mughal claim the major credit for killing thousands of Indians. It is needless to say that these Indians were Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains. Unfortunately, the brutality of Mughals has not been mentioned in any of the history textbooks in India.

The man who had 300 wives, is called as Akbar the great. This man also had nearly 5000 wives, concubines, and female servants. He was also responsible for the killing of 30,000 people during the Siege of Chittorgarh (20 October 1567 – 24 February 1568). To escape from the horny ruler called Akbar, several brave Rajput women committed Jauhar.

Jauhar or Johar is a custom of mass self-immolation to save themselves from the barbaric Islamic invaders.

Babur, Humayun, Akbar, Jehangir, Shah Jahan; All these noble characters of Indian history textbooks were criminals in real life. Forget capital punishment, even torturing them by burning in fire would be less because their crime was such.

Few foreigners believe that India can never lose a war because Sikhs are a part of the mighty Indian Army. But when you hear the torture given to the Sikh community by the Mughals, the tear won’t end up.

Those were the days when people were getting attracted towards the teachings of Guru Arjan. Seeing this, the cruel Mughal emperor Jahangir went crazy. He tried to convert Guru Arjan and when Guru Sahib opposed this, he was brutally tortured and killed. This was the tolerance level of the ‘great Mughals’.

While Akbar took pleasure in captivating women and making them as their slaves, another emperor Aurangzeb was skilled in destroying temples and gurudwaras. He was the pioneer who forced Kashmiri Pandits to convert to Islam. Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur was the brave man who had come forward to save people from this fanatic ruler. Sadly, Aurangzeb succeeded in getting place in history textbooks but not Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur.

When we study the way of killing Hindus and Sikhs by the Mughals, it will give us a nightmare. Baba Banda Singh Bahadur was forced to see his son’s heart get removed out and the same was put into Baba Banda’s mouth.

The Mughlas took great interest in destroying the temples and erecting mosques on it. Mughal emperor Shah Jahan destroyed the sacred Sri Baoli Sahib in Lahore and erected a mosque on it. Ram Mandir of Ayodhya is another example for their communal mindset.

When there are several examples which prove that the Mughlas destroyed Indians and Indian culture, then why should they be worshipped in Indian history textbooks?

Aren’t we doing injustice to the lakhs of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains who got killed by the barbaric Mughal rulers?

After reading this, you will definitely praise the decision taken by CM Yogi Adityanath.

Press Freedom Rankings are an annual rankings of countries published by an organisation named Reporters Without Borders. This ranking is that organisation’s own assessment of the degree of freedom that journalists, news organisations, and netizens have in that particular country.

The findings are carried out with the help of a questionnaire and complimentary indicators. India for some reason hasn’t performed too well in the index, but in recent days it seems to have started to attract the attention of left-liberals.

The rankings of this year were out back in March and time and again get raked up by leftists to insinuate that rankings have worsened under the Modi government:

As seen from Deepak’s graph, the situation had gradually worsened ever since UPA came to power. This is another look at the YOY ratings:

So as clearly seen, India’s ranking during UPA’s 1st year in-charge was 105 but it steadily came down to 140 within a decade. As can be seen from the chart, the situation has marginally improved ever since Modi took charge.

So clearly the UPA periods saw a systematic erosion of press-freedom in the country but they almost predictably don’t find a mention during the current scheme of things.

Christopher Dodd once said “When the public’s right to know is threatened, and when the rights of free speech and free press are at risk, all of the other liberties we hold dear are endangered”.

And thus the obvious questions to ask would be who threatens the public’s right to know and who is it that ensures that the Press isn’t free after all. Is it then the government? Or is it that establishment, or the ecosystem, that functions with or without the patronage of the government in power?

Recently, online portal The Wire published a story “exposing” Amit Shah and his son Jay Shah’s alleged scam. The story, written by a journalist named Rohini Singh, was so terribly researched that it was shred to bits in the matter of a few hours. The Wire was subsequently forced to correct some elementary errors that shockingly passed editorial checks, and it also received a defamation notice from Jay Shah seeking 100 crores in damages.

Once the bubble burst, journalist Ms. Rohini Singh and the Editor of The Wire, Mr. Siddharth Varadarajan resorted to victim playing. While Mr. Varadarajan took to twitter and appealed to the good folks to help them fight this “attack on press freedom” by donating generously to The Wire, Ms. Rohini Singh took to Facebook to come up with rhetoric when facts failed:

The portions that I have highlighted in red above is what caught my eye.

While publicising this poorly researched story, The Wire said that the journalist in question wrote about Robert Vadra’s dealings with DLF. This was necessary to pitch Rohini as some upright and ‘neutral’ journalist, especially after some reports, where she was involved as a journalist of The Economic Times, were heavily criticised on Twitter earlier for partisan reporting during the Uttar Pradesh assembly elections. Even if we leave aside Uttar Pradesh reporting controversies, the Vadra episode too is not without controversies. Though this time, the person in question is Mr. Varadrajan.

While Rohini Singh’s story about Vadra’s dealing with DLF did raise some questions about DLF dealings and Shalini Singh herself gave credit to Rohini Singh for her initial reportage, the scam as we know it today, was broken by Ms. Shalini Singh in 2012, substantially building on the information put forth by Rohini Singh, which as the evidence suggests, was not carried by the then Editor of The Hindu, Mr. Siddharth Varadarajan, for 7 long months. All of this leaves a serious question mark on Mr. Siddharth Varadarajan’s professional conduct and his commitment to the truth.

Ms. Shalini Singh had joined the Hindu in February 2012 and she submitted the Vadra story around March-April 2012, after emailing detailed questionnaires to both Mr. Robert Vadra and the DLF. She further says that after she submitted the Vadra report, the editorial team communicated to her that the story wasn’t good enough and couldn’t be carried. As a result, the story remained shelved for 7 months. The Editor of The Hindu at the time was Mr. Siddharth Varadarajan himself. In effect, the onus of the Robert Vadra scam story being shelved for that duration lies squarely on his shoulders.

In an earlier interview, Ms Shalini Singh has said that when she realized that there was no interest in carrying the story, she sought permission to give the story along with the documents to Mr. Prashant Bhushan who was at that time involved with “India Against Corruption”.

Although there were several opportunities to carry the story even then, none were taken. The story was eventually only carried AFTER Mr. Prashant Bhushan’s press conference where he talked about the dubious business deals of Robert Vadra.

The tale doesn’t end here. Even though it was now armed with the safety net of IAC’s allegations, Shalini claims that The Hindu still went ahead and took an editorial decision to add the following caveat to Ms. Shalini’s original article:

Ms. Shalini Singh is a seasoned investigative journalist who prefers to call spade a spade. I personally spoke to her and she confirmed to me that disclaimer of the documents revealing no illegality or impropriety was not her conclusion but an editorial intervention.

Her opinion, as evident from her other articles, television interview, tweets and my conversation with her, was that the scam not only implicated Mr. Robert Vadra but also landed at the doorstep of then Haryana Chief Minister Hooda and Congress President Sonia Gandhi herself. One might then ask – if there was “no illegality or impropriety”, what was the point of first inordinately delaying the the story and then later carrying it with such fanfare?

These revelations bring forth some glaring questions. What was Mr. Varadarajan’s motivation to shelve a story as explosive as this for 7 long months only to publish it after Prashant Bhushan’s press conference, that too with a caveat exonerating Robert Vadra? And if he did, how could he in good conscience, gloat over his credibility by citing how The Hindu broke the Vadra scam (we will see this gloating later in the article)?

Ms. Shalini Singh’s stories have never been questioned. Yet, The Hindu did not stand by her in this case and she eventually left the organization in 2014. It is thus amusing, that today Mr. Varadarajan and The Wire would use the credibility earned by Ms. Shalini to pass off their current shoddy journalism as investigative journalism of merit; to claim that they pursue stories regardless of political color and beyond party lines.

To quote from Ms. Rohini Singh’s Facebook post – “News is something someone wants to suppress. Everything else is advertisement. Intimidation and harassment are tools often used by powerful people to get journalists to toe their line”.

Freedom of Press is said to be curbed when the public’s right to know is threatened. While the usual suspects, including Mr. Varadarajan today, erroneously say that the freedom of press in under threat, was it not, when Siddharth himself ensured that the public’s right to know was trampled upon for 7 long months? Ms. Shalini Singh is no victim. But it would certainly seem like Mr. Varadarajan has a lot to answer for.

Addendum:

After I pursued this story, I felt it would be fair to get Mr. Varadarajan’s version of facts. Hence, OpIndia forwarded a detailed questionnaire to Mr. Siddharth Varadarajan on my behalf to which he graciously responded. Following is the unedited responses of Mr. Varadarajan (my questions in bold and his responses in italics) followed by my observations.

1.Ms. Shalini said she submitted the Vadra Scam report to you on March 2012 and you said that “it wasn’t good enough”. What was wrong with it?

Mr. Varadarajan : I took over as Editor of The Hindu in the third week of January 2012 and was the one who asked her to work on the Robert Vadra stories based on a set of papers that a colleague had received and passed on to me. That was soon after she joined The Hindu, perhaps in February, 2012. The source of the papers had indicated that they disclosed violations of the law by Sonia Gandhi’s son-in-law and I was thrilled to be able to pursue this story as the first big expose of my editorship. She filed a story as per my inbox in April 2012. Since the basic facts of Vadra’s dealings had already been broken by Rohini Singh in the ET in 2011, I had hoped for a substantial follow-up in terms of new material that would justify picking the threads on a story that someone had already broken so many months later. I had hoped for a story that I could use as a big splash. Sadly, the story was not of that calibre and I encouraged her to keep at it, in particular to find details of a transaction or dealing that was illegal or might be illegal.

Okay, so Mr. Varadrajan, now thinks Shalini (then with The Hindu) did not break the Vadra story and it was actually Rohini who did. Then why was he gloating on Twitter that The Hindu broke the Vadra story? See for example his old interaction with senior journalist Kanchan Gupta:

It is then amusing that four years ago Vardarajan takes to twitter to bask in the reflected glory of Ms. Shalini’s investigative journalism that he tried to shelve altogether, and now he believes that the same story was not any substantial follow up to Rohini Singh’s story.

Though Mr. Varadarjan likes to insist otherwise, the motivation for which could not be immediately ascertained, a simple comparison of both stories reveals that Shalini Singh’s story is indeed “a substantial follow-up in terms of new material”. It reveals Vadra’s entire bouquet of properties, details financial chicanery, cooking of balance sheets and fraud, particularly “raising questions about his ability to buy so many high value properties with zero capital”, while giving a 360 degrees perspective on the issue by simultaneously shining the light on DLF’s own management integrity and possible financial compulsions. In contrast, Rohini Singh’s story was more about Vadra’s “business acumen “and liberally quotes him celebrating his “own talent”.

2.Ms. Shalini said that you shelved the story for 7 months and then eventually ran the story AFTER Mr. Prashant Bhushan’s press conference. If the story wasn’t good enough, why did you run the exact same story after 7 months?

Mr. Varadarajan : It was “shelved” but remained a work in progress. The problem was not that the story was “not good enough” but it wasn’t good enough for what we had wanted and I kept pushing Shalini to dig deeper, get more details, especially on the violation of laws which I was personally convinced had taken place, but for which we had to demonstrate some evidence. When Prashant Bhushan held his presser, the story dynamic changed, and we ran a story based on whatever she had because even if we never had enough to market our story as a “breaking story” earlier, we certainly had enough to present it as a major backgrounder now that the Vadra’s business deals had come back into the news. We had the biggest package on Vadra, and, more importantly, kept up the tempo as new facts began to tumble out, especially with Ashok Khemka’s revelations. Shalini Singh and Chander Suta Dogra in Chandigarh both reported extensively on various new details that began to emerge.

It would defy common sense for Ms. Shalini Singh to pass on a ‘work in progress’ to a political outfit. One would imagine that IAC’s safety net came from the fact that the documents, on the basis of which they were conducting the presser, were given to them by a seasoned journalist who had independently exposed the 2G scam from 2007 to 2014 and that Shalini Singh had connected all the dots independently.

Ms. Shalini Singh maintains that the story on the basis of which Mr. Bhushan conducted the press conference was given to him by Ms. Shalini herself with Mr. Varadarajan’s due concurrence. How then, did Mr. Bhushan’s press conference “change the dynamic of the story” as he claims now.

Mr. Varadarajan says that the story broken by Ms. Shalini had no merit to begin with, then how would he explain Mr. Khemka swinging into action within days of the release of the story, considering no action had been taken prior to Ms. Shalini’s expose being printed?

3.An editorial decision was taken to add a caveat to Ms. Shalini Singh’s original story that read “Though the documents reveal no illegality or impropriety on the part of Mr. Vadra, they do raise the questions of why DLF – which is a publicly traded company – would enter into multiple business transactions with him on terms that appear highly preferential”.

We spoke to Ms. Shalini Singh and she maintains this was an editorial edit and wasn’t a part of her original article. Her investigation DID NOT lead her to believe that the “documents reveal no illegality”.

Mr. Varadarajan : I edited her story so I take full responsibility for everything it. I don’t have the time to make a comparison but I suspect there were dozens of sentences that would have been rewritten and would have said things that were not in her first draft. That is what happens in editing.

3A. Then why was it added?

Mr. Varadarajan : For one, it is a statement of fact, borne out by the unfortunate reality that the Modi and Khattar governments have so far failed to file any criminal charges against him. But the second part of the sentence is one that any editor will recognise as one that raised the central question about this deal: that DLF had shown favours to Vadra because of who he was.

This sadly sounds more like the kind of bizarre parallel a politician would make rather than something that could be coming from a senior editor. It is indeed tragic that Mr. Varadarajan has conveniently ignored the fact that the Modi and Khattar governments have initiated inquiries into deals by Vadra, and there is Dhingra Commission Report that details the wrongdoings.

Hooda has obtained a court stay on release of the Dhingra Commission Report. If there was indeed no criminal illegality, why would Hooda seek the shelter of a court stay?

If Mr. Varadarajan was as much of an independent media crusader as he claims to be, surely he should push for the Dhingra commission report to be made public so that the alleged misdeeds are suitably punished, instead of rushing to conclude they are innocent, despite the fact that he himself has published stories that establish illegality? And if Mr. Varadarajan thinks there is inaction on the part of the Modi government, then instead of using that inaction as his shield (considering he is one of PM Modi’s greatest critics), he should perhaps demand action.

3B. Whose decision was it to add the caveat?

Mr. Varadarajan : I don’t recall, to be honest, but the sentence is elegant and so I am happy to take credit for it. Apart from what I have already said about it, the ‘caveat’ was intended to serve the purpose of providing some additional insulation for The Hindu in the event that Vadra’s lawyers attempted to file a defamation case.

3C. Since you were the editor of The Hindu at the time, was it your decision to add the caveat?

Mr. Varadarajan : Yes, I take full responsibility for every word in the published story.

The jury is out on whether in a serious investigative story with such severe political consequences, an editor should comprise on accuracy in favor of “elegant sentences”.

Mr. Khemka acted within days of the story so clearly everyone else could see the merits of the investigative story except for the editor himself. ‘The unfortunate reality’ is that Mr. Varadarajan, instead of being contrite is “happy to take credit” for his error.

After receiving Mr. Varadarajan’s response, I spoke to Ms. Shalini Singh again and asked her if there was anything she would like to say. Following is her official response:

“Everyone is entitled to their opinion of any story, particularly a senior editor like Siddharth Varadarajan, and they must exercise that right. If the story “sadly’ never was, “of that calibre”, why on earth is he taking credit for it on social media?

Also, can he explain why this delayed and “shelved’ story created an uproar and not the earlier ET story? Again, why is my story still under discussion, considering it was done and dusted in 2012 and I am not the one bragging about it?

Allow me to jog his memory about the “calibre’” that perhaps those other than himself could see, including IAC, which launched its political career with this issue.

“Director general, land holdings and land records and inspector general of registration, Haryana, Ashok Khemka in October 2012 set aside the mutation of Mr. Vadra’s property giving effect to the sale deed in favor of DLF. “Mr. Khemka’s decision came in the wake of an inquiry he conducted following the publication of a story, ‘behind robert vadra’s fortunes, a maze of questions,’ in The Hindu on october 8, 2012”.

This is not my version of the outcome of my story but a fact which incidentally, forms the second paragraph of a story in The Hindu itself.

There was no reaction as far as i know to the Economic Times story despite all its “calibre”. But do correct me if I am wrong.”

It is indeed tragic that Mr. Varadarajan has resorted to trashing the very story that he prided himself with. Perhaps Mr. Varadarajan is questioning the authenticity of Ms. Shalini Singh’s expose because it suits his current needs to shift the glory onto other journalists. Perhaps the world of journalism functions on the principles of reflected glory. Either way, it seems like we will never know the real reason why the Vadra Expose by Ms. Shalini Singh was shelved for 7 months and why the public’s right to know was trampled upon then by Mr. Varadarajan.

Crackerjack Diwali
Much has been said and written about the Taj Mahal in recent days. I am glad Yogi Adityanath brought it up first and pronounced it is not the only monument of interest in UP or India. It takes courage to do that in the face of historical liars who have glorified this building by cleverly concealing the crimes behind it. Over 2000o workers who built it had their hands chopped off and the murderer who built it, Shahjehan, is known to have had a harem of thousands of women. Tons of money, far more than on any other heritage monument in India, has been spent on preserving the Taj. During wars it was probably the only monument that was covered with scaffolding and protected from attacks:

It doesn’t take a genius to understand that crackers on any given day would add to pollution – noise and air. Sometimes, the manner in which crackers are burst right through a small road or a main road during a wedding “Baraat” is certainly a nuisance to drivers and pedestrians. But courts going about issuing diktats and bans on crackers or other social celebrations is being seen as an “attack on Hindus”. Because, courts have largely remained silent on silly practices of other religious communities. And it’s not just crackers during Diwali. Commies and Fiberals have systematically attacked every Hindu tradition. From Karwa Chauth to Holi to Jallikattu to temples to Kavarias, abusing and slaughtering cows nothing has been spared. These Fiberals did not even spare Hindu Gods and icons. They have trashed Ram, Sita, Shiva, Ganesh and even called Durga a “prostitute”.

It doesn’t take a genius to understand that crackers on any given day would add to pollution – noise and air. Sometimes, the manner in which crackers are burst right through a small road or a main road during a wedding “Baraat” is certainly a nuisance to drivers and pedestrians. But courts going about issuing diktats and bans on crackers or other social celebrations is being seen as an “attack on Hindus”. Because, courts have largely remained silent on silly practices of other religious communities. And it’s not just crackers during Diwali. Commies and Fiberals have systematically attacked every Hindu tradition. From Karwa Chauth to Holi to Jallikattu to temples to Kavarias, abusing and slaughtering cows nothing has been spared. These Fiberals did not even spare Hindu Gods and icons. They have trashed Ram, Sita, Shiva, Ganesh and even called Durga a “prostitute”.

Courts are either ignorant or are deliberately blind to the systematic abuse showered on Hindu practices. This, in a scenario where Hindus are the only ones willing to reform their practices. Try telling Muslims to delete hateful passages from the Quran. Try telling Christians to stop their nonsense about miracles by some glorified fake angel or their vagabond practice of “miracle healing”. The hatred and abuse of Hindus and their practices had dramatically increased during the 10 years of Congress-UPA. Sonia and her gang had plans to destroy Hindus, Hinduism and turn India into a Chrislamist nation. Congress itself is seen as anti-Hindu and for good reasons. Therefore, Hindus are now saying “enough is enough”. From reports, it seems Delhi burst more crackers on Diwali this year than the last year just to throw eggs on the faces of SC judges and the Commie Fiberals who wanted to ban crackers.

Diwali is the celebration of Lord Ram’s return to his throne at Ayodhya. Many celebrate it in different ways but that’s the central spirit. For a festival as mass-celebrated as Diwali, with crackers and lights, the SC shouldn’t have interfered. From Dahi Handi to Jallikattu to now crackers, the SC is being defied by the public. The loss of respect for SC is certainly not a healthy sign in a democracy. But there’s no way you can impose on “Free will”, not even God takes that liberty so humans should be wary of that. SC should safely leave regulations, which work much better, with their recommendations to concerned govts. As a consequence of all this Commie-Fiberal-Court actions, Hindus have seen a certain solid revival of their traditions and beliefs in their power as a community. Few years back, even the rabidly Hindu-hating Sonia had to give into the political demands of placating Lord Ram thusly:
Fake devotion doesn’t sell. The Congress has since been thrown out of the Centre and from many states. A genuine sign of respecting and honouring Lord Ram & co. would have certainly been appreciated. Not in the 500 years of the Ayodhya dispute did it occur to anyone to light up Ayodhya on Diwali. One doesn’t need to be an Einstein to understand what joy and thrill the Yogi Adityanath sent through the hearts of Hindus this Diwali by lighting up the birthplace of Ram:

The usual “Bhajans”, people decked up in silk garments and jewellery, symbolic Ram, Lakshman and Sita all added to the sentiment. All said and done, it’s just a couple of days of revelry and celebration and then people will go back to their drudgery but it is these festivals and celebrations are the ones that have kept Hinduism alive. Even on such an occasion a Congress pig doesn’t like it. The secretary of Maharashtra Congress, a moron called Shehzad Poonawalla – the senior moron of the Poonawalla brothers, spits and mocks the celebration:
The last thing me or any sane Hindu would want is lectures or sermons on practices of Hindus from a Desert Cult duffer. These guys who cannot get an actor to play Mohammad or make a biopic on his violent life seem to enjoy ranting at others. Had a Hindu politician done this, the anti-Hindu media would have asked questions to PM Modi. But this Sonia-bootlicker Shehzad trashes other religious icons but nobody questions Sonia. The hatred for Hindus and their Gods flows directly from Sonia among filthy Congis. In a lame attempt to thwart Diwali celebrations many corporations – like Samsung, Panasonic, Tata had also sent messages almost describing Diwali as nothing more than a “pollutant”. One can see the manner in which messages are crafted for Diwali and for other festivals:
What does come out in all this orchestrated campaign is that the Commies are really fearing a decimation politically. They are trying to coat Hindu festivals in all deceptive and delusional colour as the Commies of an outlet of Varadabhai called “The Wire” does. These guys have even concocted a “Mughal Diwali”:

That is laughable. Mughals or Muslims have never understood or respected the concept of light. Hindus treat Agni as a universal force and power and often as God. As a handle points out, Mughals had no lunch-breaks in their murder-spree even during Diwali. They don’t have breaks from killing even during Ramzan now. Immutable truth is: You CANNOT write one page of Mughal or any Islamic history without writing about the brutal mass-murders and bloodshed. Even their festivals are not without bloodshed but our Fiberals and Courts don’t want to hear about it. Doesn’t matter. Hindus just will not tolerate any more nonsense against their religion. Commies have now started fearing the SC judgement on Ayodhya:

And their fear is genuine because they face a “Catch-22” situation. It’s a now a NO WIN situation for them. If SC rules against the Allahabad court judgement, Hindus will be angry and vote for BJP. If SC upholds the Allahabad judgement Hindus will jubilant and vote for BJP in celebration. These Commies now have nowhere to run from Ram. Even the usually uncouth, uncivilised politicians have now surrendered to Ram and Krishna:

I am sure RahulG doesn’t know a damn thing about Krishna or Dwarka. But he goes to Dwarkadish temple to pray. Like his mom, he still thinks Hindus are fools. That Congis can publicly slaughter a cow and feast on it and then go to Gujarat and beg for votes is as moronic as Congis can get. As for Mullah Kejriwal, he has shed his Muslim Topi and scarf and is seen a rare prayer at Diwali. I don’t know if Ram or Krishna will work for these guys. But I certainly do know, there is a fear of Lord Ram that has crept into these folks. If it reforms them and stops their Hindu-hating – Good! If it does not, then Hindus will continue seeing them as descendants of Raavan and the Kauravas.

It is no secret that media outlets like the BBC and the Economist have an anti India, anti-BJP or anti-Modi slant to their editorials and coverage. A recent article published by the Economist lays threadbare their modus oprendi to malign Modi. Use half truths and debunked lies while ignoring any shred of objectivity to spin their agenda.

The article titled, India’s prime minister focuses too much on appearances, starts with the assumption that:

Mr Modi’s recent setbacks, however, stem in large part from his preoccupation with presentation over substance.

The rest of the article does not speak about this topic and the assertion is not backed up with anything objective or even remotely provable. Let us go further down the rabbit hole that is this Economist article, where we are supposed to discover ‘setbacks’:

Start with the economy. Growth has slowed, from 9.1% year-on-year in the first quarter of last year to 5.7% in the second quarter of this year. That is in part because of his policy of “demonetisation”, in which 86% of the banknotes in circulation were abruptly voided.

This ignores the fact that growth had started to slow down before demonetisation was introduced. It also ignores the fact that early indicators suggest that the Indian economy has possibly turned a corner and the economy is bouncing back.

Further, the article says:

Mr Modi presented it as a crushing blow to gangsters and tax-dodgers, but in fact it caused great hardship and disruption, without any clear benefit.

This is a very amateurish attempt that fails to provide any context and simply assumes demonetisation to be a failure. It does not talk about how demonetisation has ‘nudged’ India and Indians from a cash attached society to on that is switching to digital payments with gusto.

Tax-dodgers are not off the hook as ‘Project Insight‘ is there, and The Economist presents no data or argument to believe that crimes based on illicit or black money is not down. In fact, data shows that demonetisation indeed broke the bone of some crime syndicates, especially human trafficking.

Ranting on without substance, the article further claims:

Mr Modi triumphantly declared the GST a “good and simple tax”. But he did not listen to his own advisers’ suggestions on how to make it so.

This one truly boggles the mind – does the venerable Economist not know that Mr Modi does not dictate policy like is an authoritarian ruler? GST in particular is a triumph of co-operative federalism and is driven by a council that determines the rate structure. That aside, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that Mr Modi was recommended only 3 rates, and he single-handedly ‘imposed’ the current structure.

The article then harps about ‘rising intolerance’ and attack on ‘press freedom’:

It does not help that the government bridles at criticism and harries its critics. Media firms are anxious not to offend it; journalists who take it on often lose their jobs. The press has been asking awkward questions about the finances of a firm owned by the son of Amit Shah, the BJP’s number two; they were greeted with rebukes from ministers and a lawsuit.

I can’t think of names of any journalists who lost their jobs, on the other hand, most anti-Modi journalists are doing very well in their professional lives and are running well-funded and well-oiled media outlets.

Having failed at establishing any facts, The Economist then goes into the real of pushing propaganda:

Even comedians who imitate Mr Modi have mysteriously disappeared from the airwaves.

Outright calumny that takes on darker tones. No The Economist, the comedian did not disappear from the airwaves, on the contrary, in an interview he openly says that neither Mr Modi nor the BJP had anything to do with him not being allowed to perform his mimicry act. It was a decision taken by the private TV channel.

Perhaps the ‘best’ part of The Economist article is this:

The new government in Uttar Pradesh, for example, has painted buildings and buses saffron—a shade associated with Hinduism—and picked fights with Muslims, leaving the Taj Mahal (built by a Muslim emperor) off a list of the state’s main attractions.

How did content like this even get past the ostensibly high standards editorial boards in this venerable magazine? What does this even mean? This is really shoddy journalism. Thank god that they did not mention banning illegal slaughterhouses as picking fights with Muslims, which the desi media had done. Maybe The Economist is late to the party.

Now that the article is into anti-BJP mode, this is what appears next:

The party’s overriding focus is extending its own authority. Earlier this year the defence minister, Manohar Parrikar, resigned to become chief minister of the tiny state of Goa. The BJP had lost ground there in recent state elections, and the allies it needed to form a government insisted they would join it only if Mr Parrikar, a former chief minister, returned. The finance minister, for whom making the GST work was apparently not a full-time job, took on the role of defence minister as well for the next six months—a period of tension with both China and Pakistan.

It is a democracy, and in a democracy, no one is indispensable. Besides, the tensions with China was managed effectively and the Doklam issue cooled down, so why this needless angst?

In summation, the article is high on subjectivity and opinion being pushed as objective journalism, this write-up even fails to make a link between the clickbaitey headline and the body and content of the article and leaves it to the reader to make these connections. One would definitely expect more from an organisation with the stature and reputation of The Economist.